Bruins @ Leafs - Nov. 23rd, 7:30pm - TSN4, Fan 590
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
But you were talking about 4 on 3, not 3 on 3.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
I guess reading this discussion I'm not seeing where the difference would be in a 4 on 3 PP in OT vs in regulation.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Except that's demonstrably not true. Teams could always use whoever they wanted on a 4 on 3 powerplay in OT and they would and do always use a modified version of their regular PP or their normal 4 on 3. The killing team will use the same group of penalty killers they would in any three man situation. The options are exactly the same and it doesn't drastically alter which strategies are successful and which aren't.
More to the point that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual strategy of scoring on this particular 4 on 3 powerplay. There's nothing about using Rielly, who the team used in 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 OT situations, that is different or new or wouldn't be available to them in any other 4 on 3 situation. Phaneuf, likewise, was used in all of these situations. There's no appreciable difference in the "dynamic" of who the Leafs might have used 4 on 3.
ZBBM
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Well, you've just proved my point, unless you are seriously arguing that there's "no appreciable difference" between a player with Rielly's mobility playing the point versus a player like Phaneuf. There are obvious differences, starting with the fact that Phaneuf has a better cannon but relatively little else in terms of offense, whereas Rielly's skating can introduce more movement into the PP as a whole (and induce more movement out of the defense). It's a "disruptor" strategy for the 4/3, and it's a different dynamic than taking point shots and hoping for a screened goal and/or rebounds. My argument is that it would be more effective, and I hope Babcock tries it.
EDIT: and sorry Nik, but my lunch break is over now and I'll have to rejoin this later if you want to continue the discussion.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
No, now you're just talking gibberish. You said there's a fundamental difference between effective 4 on 3 strategies depending on what point of the game it is or even between last year's 4 on 3 OT situations and this year's. You said the word "dynamic" a lot, seemingly in the hope that it would confuse someone who didn't know what dynamic means.
The difference between Rielly and Phaneuf and what they bring to a PP exists regardless of when in the game a PP takes place and "driving the net" is not something NHL teams do with defensemen on the PP.
The Leafs got a terrific chance last night on the PP in question off of a rebound on one of Phaneuf's point shots. That JVR didn't score on it, or that Rask made one of the best saves of the season, is not a good argument against the efficacy of Phaneuf's shot as a weapon on a PP devoid of them.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
ZBBMcF #neverwrong
I swear to god, some peoples inability to hold their hands up on the Internet is hilarious.
I'm as adamant as the next guy when arguing, but when Nik(or whomever) feeds me my lunch, jokes aside, I tend to give him them their due.
I swear to god, some peoples inability to hold their hands up on the Internet is hilarious.
I'm as adamant as the next guy when arguing, but when Nik(or whomever) feeds me my lunch, jokes aside, I tend to give him them their due.
ZBBM
Active member
Patrick said:
Well, if and when Nik ever provides me lunch, I'll gladly thank him for his generosity.
Seriously, keep in mind that he and I have been trading barbs since The Dawn of Time, almost back to Penaltybox days. And, I think it was Henry Kissinger who once said that the reason academic debates are so vicious is because the stakes are so low. Same here. I mean, we're arguing about a minor point of hockey strategy. We can afford to be belligerent because nothing of value is at stake and nothing will be settled anyhow.
And for the record, I've admitted I've been wrong any number of times. If it makes you feel any better, I'll state publicly here and now that my qualms about taking Marner over Hanifin were wrong. Seeing the improvement on the Leafs D so far has convinced me that Marner is needed more and is the better choice.
8)
However, I still think they botched the management of the next round.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Travis Konecny is the obvious guy they could have taken had they not traded down? He is at 22gp, 5g, [edit: 33pts] on the Ottawa 67s, OHL. So the raw stats are pretty similar to Dzierkals. Raw stats are just raw stats (on different teams, different leagues OHL vs Q). Still, at this point, it seems like having a couple of extra irons in the fire isn't terrible. We shall see ...
Kin
New member
princedpw said:
Maybe although given that they went with Marner and probably had an inkling that they were going to be adding Kapanen it might be safe to assume that they would have leaned towards a defenseman regardless. Larsson, Carlsson or Roy were the likely choices there I think.
Highlander
Active member
I think the Leafs strategy is so sound, a quantam leap from the Burke and Ferguson years. Sign up journeymen to the Leafs, hopefully they play well and we accumulate picks at the deadline.
With the experience of Hunter and Dubas to spot talent they trade up and get a 3 for 1 special. How many first rounders never make the grade, plenty. Out of the three Herman mentions perhaps all three will make the Big(g)s?.sorry couldn't resist that
With the experience of Hunter and Dubas to spot talent they trade up and get a 3 for 1 special. How many first rounders never make the grade, plenty. Out of the three Herman mentions perhaps all three will make the Big(g)s?.sorry couldn't resist that